42 WP1516-22.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.1516 OF 2022

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.16954 OF 2022

Sunshine Caterers Pvt. Ltd.

….. Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India and Ors.

….. Respondents

Mr. Subhash Jha a/w Mr.Siddharth Jha i/b M/s.Law Global

for the Petitioner

Mr.Amit Sale i/b M/s.Consulta Juris for the Respondent

no.2

Mr.T.J.Pandian a/w Mr.Dheer Sampat for the Respondent

no.3

CORAM:

S.V. GANGAPURWALA &

MADHAV J.JAMDAR, JJ.

DATED :

JUNE 6, 2022

P.C.

1.

The present Petitioner is awarded contract of Pantry

Service for Train No.19039-19040 namely Awadh Express

having its route between Bandra to Muzaffarpur. The said

contract was for a period of five years with renewal clause of

further five years. The said contract was entered into in the

year 2013 w.e.f. 2014. The Petitioner is operating the

pantry service since then.

Mohite

1/7

TRUSHA

TUSHAR

MOHITE

Digitally signed by

TRUSHA TUSHAR

MOHITE

Date: 2022.06.08

14:44:29 +0530

42 WP1516-22.docx

2.

Under the impugned communication, the Respondents

have issued a fresh tender for the train re-numbered as

Train No.19037-19038. The same is assailed in the present

petition.

3.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner strenuously

contends that the contract awarded to the Petitioner which

is in force for 10 years cannot be unilaterally terminated in

the manner in which the show cause was issued to the

Petitioner. Only because the train has been re-numbered,

may not give right to the Respondents to terminate the

contract. Respondents are bound by the terms of the

contract. The route of the train for which the pantry

service contract was awarded to the Petitioner was from

Bandra to Muzaffarpur. Only because the said route is

extended upto Barauni, would not be sufficient to revoke the

contract. The learned counsel relies upon clause 8.2 to 8.4

of the license agreement between the parties. The learned

counsel submits that the other train referred to as 19037-

19038 was from Bandra to Gorakhpur. The same was

running for four days in a week. No permanent contract

was given to any person for pantry service in the said train

since 2016. On adhoc / temporary basis for every quarter

the contract was given. Only because the Respondents can

gain more revenue, would not be the reason to terminate

the contract. The learned counsel to substantiate his

contention, relies upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court

in the case of Kishan Freight Forwarders vs. Union of India

& others dated 02.06.2011. The learned counsel further

submits that the action of the Respondents is arbitrary. The

Mohite

2/7

42 WP1516-22.docx

Railways is an instrumentality of the State. They have to

act fairly. The arbitrary action of the instrumentality of the

State cannot be sustained. The learned counsel. to buttress

the submission relies on the judgment of learned Single

Judge of Delhi High Court in the case of R.K.Associates &

Hoteliers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Indian Railways Catering & Tourism

Corporation (IRCTC) & Ors. dated 18.05.2015. The learned

counsel further submits that once the instrumentality of the

State decides to award the contract on the basis of the bid

by tender, it must abide by the terms of the tender.

4.

Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Harminder

Singh Arora v. Union of India and Others (1986) 3 SCC 247.

The learned counsel submits that earlier the train for which

the contract was awarded used to run thrice a week and

other train bearing 19037-19038 four days in a week. If the

revenue is increased, then the Petitioner would pay

enhanced portion as provided under clause 8.4 and 19 of

the licence agreement. The action of the Respondents in

terms of the contract is arbitrary. In several matters,

wherein the trains were renumbered, pantry service

contract has been continued.

The Petitioner is

discriminated. 200 families are